With the reminder that I am not a lawyer... :-)
What you described is exactly the way I understand it.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Janet M. Swisher wrote:
I want to make sure I understand this, so I'm going to try to put it
into my own words. Please let me know whether my understanding matches
what you've got in mind.
OOoAuthors will license all documents under the PDL as "original
documentation". Even updates to existing documents will be considered
"original documentation", not a "modification" of an existing document.
This is because the people making the updates (OOoAuthors members) will
do so under one of the other licenses available (GPL or CC). The only
case in which someone has the burden of tracking "modifications" is if
they choose to accept it under only the PDL, and they decide to make and
publish changes on their own.
For example, suppose I decide to rebrand OpenOffice.org as
"JanetOffice", and I want to use the OOoAuthor-produced guides (most of
which I didn't write), and I choose the PDL as the license under which I
do that. In that case, I would have to include a notice that "I changed
'OpenOffice.org' to 'JanetOffice' throughout this guide". However, if I
chose the GPL or the CC license to govern my use of the guides, I would
have to do comply with whatever they say about modifications, which I
don't remember except that it's less onerous.
In short, it sounds like you're saying that publishing as PDL "original
documentation", combined with the other license options, provides an
"escape" whereby we don't have to track modifications for the PDL.
Is that correct?
--
/\/`) Leave your mark at OpenOffice.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ OOoAuthors: http://oooauthors.org
\/_/ Knowledge Base: http://mindmeld.cybersite.com.au/
/
